A Report of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
as prepared by its Social Concerns Committee
September 1981

Against the background of this discussion of marriage and its
purposes we may proceed to comment briefly on a few issues
connected with marriage and sexuality. Our intention here is not
to discuss fully all relevant issues, such as, for example, the
problems of pornography or abortion, but instead to deal with some
of the problems most frequently mentioned in requests to the
Synod.
[28] It should be noted that we have chosen
to concentrate
first on a positive development of the order of marriage and its
purposes. No discussion of particular problems, however urgent
they may appear to be, is likely to be helpful if carried out in
isolation from a developed theological understanding of
sexuality. Furthermore, it ought to be obvious that no brief
discussion of the problems taken up can be exhaustive or fully
adequate. It will be enough to point out the direction in which
the analysis above leads with respect to certain issues.

In response to the questioning of some Pharisees, Jesus was
Himself prompted to discuss the issue of divorce (Matt. 19:3-9;
cf. Matt. 5:31 f.). In so doing He appeals to the primal will of
the Creator that a man and woman who have become one flesh are
not to be "put asunder." Although the law of Moses had allowed
divorce, this was due to the hardness of the sinful human heart
(Deut. 24:1-4). But "from the beginning it was not so," and Jesus
appeals to that primal ordinance in order to demonstrate what
marriage ought to be and to convict those who fall short of what
it is meant to be.

It is for our purposes most important to recognize the seriousness
with which all traditional Christian teaching has regarded
divorce. C. S. Lewis has made use of the "one flesh" imagery to
provide a simple explanation of this common Christian teaching.

All [Christian churches] regard divorce as something
like cutting up a living body, as a kind of surgical
operation. Some of them think the operation so violent
that it cannot be done at all [Catholic teaching on
indissolubility]; others admit it as a desperate remedy
in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more
like having both your legs cut off than it is like
dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a
regiment. What they all disagree with is the modern view
that it is a simple readjustment of partners...[29]

We can see that the retention of this traditional view is no mere
traditionalism but, on the contrary, takes seriously the will of
God for marriage, as well as the needs of our human nature. We
remind ourselves of some of the implications of the three
purposes of marriage developed above. Consider first marriage as
a union in mutual love. The promises lovers make are not
foolhardy. They answer to some of the deepest needs of human
beings: the need never to be left entirely alone, whatever the
future may bring; the need to be sure that, whatever uncertainties
the future may hold, these two people can at least say that
theirs will be a future together; the need to be able to give
themselves entirely and completely to another-to be naked before
the other, and to be so in complete trust and confidence; the
need to know that their person, not just their functions, is
valued, and that they are not interchangeable with any other
partner. The order of marriage instituted by God answers to these
deep human needs. It gives rise to a set of hopes and
expectations which ought not be disappointed, not only because we
have a commandment to the contrary, but because to disappoint
them is to fail in a fundamental human commitment answering to an
equally fundamental human need.

When we consider the child who is the fruit of marriage, we may
also come to realize the enormous seriousness of divorce. It is
fairly common to hear people say in connection with divorce that
they fear especially for the children. This statement, though it
may ordinarily refer only to the disruption and uncertainty which
divorce brings to the life of the child, may also point to an
even deeper reality. If the child is the sign of the unity-indeed
more, the incarnation of the unity-of this man and woman who now
propose to rupture their oneness, then of course we must fear for
the child. What event could be more calculated to disturb the
child at the very center of his personal identity? Parents are not
merely a cause and children an effect which can easily be
separated. Here again we must remember that our commitments in
the flesh are personal commitments. The child's personhood, his
sense of identity is involved. To tear the marriage asunder is in
some sense to do the same to the child.

Moreover, Christian parents need to remember their commitments to
their children are also spiritual commitments. Husband and wife
who have joined themselves in the one-flesh union of marriage
(Eph. 5:31) are committed to fulfill their parental duty by
bringing up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord" (Eph. 6:4 KJV). It goes 'without saying that the task of
bearing a credible witness to the Lord's instruction regarding
the permanency of marriage and the meaning of the self-giving
love which makes marriage work (Eph. 5:21 ff.) is made more
difficult for divorced parents.

Thirdly, marriage can scarcely function as a place of remedy or
healing if we refuse its constraints and reject its disciplines.
In marriage God would have us learn what commitment to another
person involves. He offers no guarantees that such commitment
will always be easy or pleasant. There is only one sure way to
protect ourselves against the cost of commitment to others, and
that-to make no such commitment at all, whether in marriage or in
other ways-is to tread the destructive path of disobedience and
rebellion against the Creator (Rom. 1:24-32). Marriage cannot
function in accord with its God-ordained purpose if it is given
up whenever our desires and wishes encourage us to do so or if we
merely resign ourselves fatalistically to a deteriorating
relationship. There is another alternative. If, in prayer and
hope, we recommit ourselves to what we have promised, those
desires and wishes may be transformed and marriage will fulfill
its task of healing.

God is at work in history gathering a faithful community. In
marriage we are given some taste of what such fidelity involves
and requires. We are given an opportunity to be faithful to one
person as God has been faithful to us all. This is the principle
articulated in the passage which perhaps more than any other has
shaped Christian thinking about marriage, Eph. 5:31-32: "'For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is
a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the
church...." This is the pattern of love which ought to permeate
marriage. It is the only kind of love which can answer to our
deepest needs. It must be a love which is willing to go as far as
Christ did in His commitment to His people, a love which so
commits itself to the good of the beloved that nothing short of
death can break the bond of its commitment.

It remains true, of course, that ours is a world distorted by sin.
'Marriages are broken daily, and our personal relationships are
often characterized by something less than a Christlike fidelity.
In response to this the church in its public teaching must hold
up and bear witness to the need for fidelity in marriage. Yet the
church must face the fact that divorce has become a prevalent
practice in our society. According to the Scriptures, fornication
is the only ground for divorce (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).
[30] The act of
fornication by a partner in marriage breaks the unity of the
marriage. In this situation the individual offended may have the
right to secure a divorce. However, this does not mean that he or
she must or should exercise this right. In some cases forgiveness
can save the marriage.

The divorce of Christian pastors must be taken with
utmost seriousness. It is difficult to see how the
church can maintain the integrity of its witness --
especially in an age where divorce is prevalent -- if it
permits pastors who have divorced their wives for less
than Biblical reasons to continue in the office of the
public ministry. Generally a pastor who has been
divorced except in cases of unchastity or desertion on
the part of his wife ought not to remain in office nor
be reinstated in the office of pastor. However it is
possible that under very exceptional circumstances a
former pastor may by the grace of God come to the point
of being in a position to be reconsidered as a person
qualified to be entrusted once more with the powers of
the pastoral office.
[31]

It is equally true that in the application of this teaching to
individual cases pastors may confront marriages which cannot be
preserved, even after long and serious attempts to do so. The
conflict between the Creator's primal ordinance and the
brokenness of human life in a world characterized by our
"hardness of heart" will continue until the end of the age. In
such circumstances the pastor is called on to deal with the
brokenness of human life in a sinful world while at the same time
seeking ways to affirm the Creator's will for marriage. These can
only be occasions for sorrow, repentance, and reaffirmation of
God's never-failing commitment to us.

A person who has obtained a divorce for unscriptural reasons may
under certain circumstances, with repentance as the primary
prerequisite, remarry. The absence of hope for a reconciliation is
also a consideration, and there may be other pastoral concerns as
well.

Those who are seeking a divorce for a reason other than
that allowed by the Scriptures need to be warned against
the danger of "planned repentance." Since genuine
sorrow over one's sin against God and faith in the
forgiveness of Christ belong to the essence of
repentance, it goes without saying that to proceed
premeditatively in doing that which one knows to be
contrary to God's will, with the intention of becoming
contrite later, makes it impossible for faith and the
Holy Spirit to remain in the heart (2 Sam. 11; 1 John
1:8; 3:9; 5:18). To proceed in securing a divorce with
the full knowledge that such an action is contrary to
God's will with the intention of becoming repentant at
some point in the future is, therefore, to enter into
great spiritual peril.
[32]

[28] With respect to abortion, the official
position of The Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod is that "since abortion takes a human life,
abortion is not a moral option, except as a tragically unavoidable
byproduct of medical procedures necessary to prevent the death of
another human being, viz., the mother . . ." (1979 Resolution
3-02A, "To State Position on Abortion"). This issue is not
treated in this study, since the CTCR and its Social Concerns
Committee are in the process of preparing a new report on
abortion. When completed, it will be made available to the
members of the Synod for study and guidance.

[30] Traditionally theologians in our
Synod have noted that. while
there is only one Scriptural ground for divorce, viz..
fornication, there are eases in which Christians may suffer
"malicious desertion. "Dr. John H. C. Fritz, in his Pastoral
Theology, states on the basis of 1 Cor. 7:15 that malicious
desertion occurs when a spouse deserts the other party "with the
manifest intention of not returning to the abandoned spouse, and
will not by any means be persuaded to return." Such desertion,
rather than a cause for divorce Fritz says, "is in itself
divorce" and constitutes the dissolution of the marriage (p.
181). In a forthcoming report on "Divorce and Remarriage" the
Commission will give this matter more detailed attention as it
seeks to offer guidance to pastors and congregations as they deal
with problems such as this in their ministry of pastoral care.

[32] In his discussion of penitence in
the Smalcald Articles Luther
writes: "It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when
holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel
original sin and daily repentance strive against it, fall in to
open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy),
faith and the Spirit have departed from them. This is so because
the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper
hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit
represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes.
If sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not
present, for St. John says, 'No one born of God commits sin; he
cannot sin.' Yet it is also true, as the same St. John writes,
'If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. and the truth is
not in us"' (Smalcald Articles III. iii. 43-45).

The principle which determines how husbands and wives are to
conduct themselves toward each other within the order of marriage
is that of mutual service (Eph. 5:21). Their attitude toward each
other's assigned role is to be shaped by their recollection of
the self-giving love of Christ for the church (Eph. 5:2). "For
the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). As the church's
Head devoted Himself totally to the needs of His church, so the
husband is to devote himself to the needs of his wife. And as the
church yields itself completely to the love, care, and direction
of the Lord, so the wife is to yield herself to her husband.

The apostle's exhortation that husbands and wives "be subject to
one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph. 5:21) must not be
interpreted to mean that there ceases to be hierarchy within
marriage. The call to mutual service presupposes that an ordered
relationship between husband and wife exists. Under the principle
of mutual service, however, hierarchy within marriage is viewed
not as a political relationship of the ruler over the ruled but
as an arrangement whereby the welfare of the other may be served.

The Christian husband will therefore understand that the position
of headship has been entrusted to him for the exercise of
sacrificial love toward his wife. Mindful of Christ's willingness
to suffer death for His beloved, the church, the husband will
seek to bind his wife to himself by love and gentleness. The
Christian wife will understand that, in requiring that she be
subject to her husband, God has put her in a position of
supporting her husband in his responsibility to care for those
who belong to his household. Such a relationship, which cannot be
equated simply with obedience, carries with it the honor of
accepting a role which the Son of God Himself assumed before His
Father (1 Cor. 15:28).
[33]

Where mutual service of the kind we find in the life and work of
Christ prevails within the hierarchy of marriage, permanence of
the marriage bond is assured.

To understand something of the sense in which hierarchy
in marriage is to be recommended we should distinguish
two sorts of hierarchies: of function and of merit.
[34] Hierarchies of function occur when
those who are
different are nevertheless united in an organic unity
which is more than a contractual association. Thus, for
example, we might consider the relation of parent and
child. The parent's legitimate authority over the child
is not based simply on the fact that the parent knows
more and has more experience than the child. If these
were the only considerations, we could equally well
assign children to other adults (or to some kind of
state-run organization) for their rearing. But the
family is a fellowship, a community. And the members of
such an organic unity have different roles to play in
the life of the whole (Eph. 6:1-4;1 Peter 3:1-7). (We
may think of Paul's reference to the church as Christ's
body having many members.) Hence, in a hierarchy of
function a kind of inequality of authority exists. Yet,
we would scarcely conclude from this that one member of
the union (the parent) was of greater value or "worth
more ... than an other (the child). In referring to this
hierarchy of function we are saying nothing more than
that in their common life together some must lead and
others follow if the character of the union is to be
maintained and their common life sustained.

A different example may make clear what a hierarchy of
merit would involve. If we grant that within the
classroom teachers have a legitimate authority, this is
no doubt because of the knowledge the teachers have
acquired and are able to impart. If, however, after
class a teacher with no mechanical ability should walk
into the parking lot and find that his car will not
start, any one of his students with mechanical aptitude
immediately becomes his superior in a new role
relationship. Hierarchy here depends precisely on some
superiority.

We may note important differences between hierarchies of
the two sorts. Hierarchies of function are stable. The
roles of super and subordination do not change. In
hierarchies of merit, however, the roles are constantly
changing. Hierarchies of merit are fluid and in a
constant state of change precisely because no one merits
superordination in all aspects of life. We can even say
that a sort of equality is built into hierarchies of
merit in the sense that they involve a constant set of
changes. At any given moment not equality but super-and
subordination pertain. However, these roles are
constantly shifting, and no one is always in authority.
Consequently, distinctions which rest upon merit never
make one person head of another per se. They do so only
with respect to certain activities.

It will never be difficult for people to deny the
existence of hierarchies of function, for it will
always be a little mysterious that they should exist at
all. It is difficult to give reasons of the normal sort
to justify their existence. We are accustomed to accept
as reasons explanations why-on the basis of some
superior attribute or ability-one person merits
headship. Yet just these sorts of reasons are ruled out
in discussing hierarchies of function.

The Christian claim that a hierarchy of function-with
wife subordinate to husband-is appropriate in marriage
proceeds from the Christian view of male and female.
Husband and wife are not interchangeable members of a
contractual association. They are members of a body, a
union. Their personhood is protected not by stressing
that both are persons but by emphasizing the difference
which is fundamental to the fellowship in which they
come to know themselves as man and woman, in which, that
is, they realize their identity. Such a union in love
cannot come to fruition unless the different roles of
husband and wife are recognized. Without a willingness
to complement each other in this way, a power struggle
must ensue whenever disputed matters arise. Without,
that is, a recognition by both husband and wife of
legitimate authority within their union, the permanence
of that union is endangered. The insight of Ephesians 5
goes deepest after all: Permanence and hierarchy imply
each other.

A few qualifications are still in order. It will be
helpful to note that several standard objections to
hierarchy within marriage fail to touch the position
outlined above. It will always be inappropriate to ask
for some special reason why the man ought to exercise
headship over the woman, other than the reason that God
ordained the hierarchy which exists in marriage. Any
other such reason would almost certainly imply some
superior ability or merit on the part of the husband,
but that is not the sort of hierarchy involved.
Similarly, advocates of the subordination of wives who
try to point to some traits in justification of the
husband's headship also miss the point. And finally, it
is improper to object that the wife is considered on
this account to be of less worth than the husband.
Considerations of merit and value are specifically
excluded in hierarchies of function Instead, they
proceed solely from the requirements of an organic
union in love committed to permanence. Such a union is
not dominated by considerations of either authority or
merit but rather by mutual service of the kind we find
in the ministry of Jesus Christ in our behalf.

The connection between permanence and hierarchy has been looked at
in this section largely from the side of the wife. That is, if
the permanence of the union is to be certain, she must be willing
to recognize the superordinate role of the husband. However, as
we have begun to set forth in this section, the implications for
the husband's understanding of his role are not less important.
In cases of disagreement, how shall he exercise headship? Must he
"wield authority as a domestic tyrant"?
[35] If he is really
committed to mutual service and the permanence of this union, his
first question ought certainly to be, what are her desires, her
wishes, her needs? The distortion which sin brings to human
relationships all too often enters in here as well, for this is
certainly not the first question husbands always ask themselves.
Because the authority which has been entrusted to them can be
misused, it is not out of place in Christian teaching to stress
that love will seek to treat the other as partner. This should
not be misunderstood to mean that marriage is, therefore, a mere
contractual association. Rather it is a necessary emphasis in the
face of misuse of the concept of hierarchy. Our marriages are
lived out in a fallen creation, a fact which must enter into our
understanding of what is possible and desirable in marriage.

[33] In the New Testament the term
hypotasso ("to be subject") is
not a condescending term. Luke chooses hypotasso to describe
Jesus' loving subordination of Himself to His parents (Luke
2:51). In this verse the word carries with it a twofold nuance.
On the one hand, it presupposes that a hierarchy of relationships
exists within the created order (e.g., Col. 3:18-4:1). The term
also denotes a readiness to surrender one's own will in service
to others.

[34] It should be noted that this
discussion deals only with
subordination of wives to husbands, not of women to men in
general. It is far less clear, in fact, whether the Bible
anywhere really enjoins the latter. The distinction between the
two kinds of hierarchy is taken from Charles Williams, "A
Dialogue on Hierarchy," The Image of the City and Other Essays.
ed. Anne Ridler (London: Oxford University Press, 1958),
pp. 127 f.

Homosexuality comes under a categorical prohibition in the Old and
New Testaments (Lev. 18:22, 24; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim.
1:9-10). Paul writes in Romans 1 of the "dishonorable passions"
to which God gives up those who worship the creature rather than
the Creator and says: "Their women exchanged natural relations
for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations
with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men
committing shameless acts with men . . ." (Rom. 1:26-27). In a
discussion of homosexuality one might stop here with the fact of
the condemnation uttered in such passages. If we consider
homosexuality in the light of the total Biblical context
regarding the purpose of marriage and the man-woman duality
discussed above, however, we may come to a clearer understanding
of why Christian thought has condemned and should continue to
condemn homosexual lusts and acts.

The creation of human beings for covenant community finds its
original expression in the fellowship of male and female. This
fellowship, as we have stressed above, requires a commitment to
the integrity of our sexual identity. The fellowship of male and
female implies a recognition that we are male and female and that
we should not strive to transcend that distinction. The ultimate
fellowship for which God is preparing us, of which the man-woman
polarity is an intimation, is not a merging of those who are
alike into an undifferentiated oneness. It is a harmonious
fellowship of those who, though different, are united in love.
From this viewpoint we may say that the homosexual relationship
approaches too closely the forbidden love of self and minimizes
the distinction between lover and beloved. The male-female
duality as the created pattern of human fellowship requires of us
fidelity to our sexual identity, a willingness to be male or
female.

Second, and very obviously, a homosexual relationship is
nonprocreative, and it is so not merely by choice or accident but
because the nature of the relationship itself could under no
circumstances be procreative. Some, of course, may regard this as
mere biological fact, irrelevant when the possibility of deep
affection and love in a homosexual relation is considered.
Nevertheless, the Scriptures do not place love in such "splendid
isolation." "Mere" biology becomes very important when Christian
teaching about human nature takes seriously the fact that we have
no personhood except one that is incarnate. Furthermore, when we
point to the fact that the homosexual relationship is
nonprocreative, we do so against the background of the
significance we found in suggesting that the one-flesh union of a
man and woman is ordinarily expected to be fruitful.

Hence, we can say on Christian premises that mutual consent or
even genuine affection is not enough to justify a homosexual
relationship. The human being is, according to the Scriptures,
more than mere freedom to define what he or she will be. There
are acts or relationships to which we cannot consent without
stepping beyond the limitations our Creator has set for His
creatures (Rom. 1:26 ff.). Sexuality provides an excellent
example of this truth. Mutual consent alone between partners does
not, on the Christian understanding, make heterosexual intercourse
permissible. (See Section II above on marriage and its purposes.)
Similarly, mutual consent alone, even when joined with affection,
cannot justify a homosexual union. An unwillingness to make such
affirmations is part of a "flight from creation" which besets the
contemporary world and contemporary Christendom. It ought to be
resisted in the name of the Redeemer who is also our Creator.

In discussing the sins which follow upon man's refusal to honor
God as Creator of all things (Rom. 1:26-32), the apostle Paul
singles out the sins of homosexual behavior for special comment.
Such behavior comes under God's judgment not because it is any
more heinous than the 21 vices listed in 1:29-31, but because it,
too, illustrates man's rebellion against his Creator. Like these
sins, homosexual behavior is illustrative of how rebellious man
turns in upon himself and makes "an agony of the common life that
should in God's intent have been a blessing to mankind."
[36]

The apostle's condemnation, however, is not meant to deprive those
guilty of these sins the help which God would extend to them.
While not minimizing the threat of God's wrath against all forms
of enslavement to sin, the church needs to recognize in its
efforts to help the homosexual that all people are born in need
of deliverance from the effects which sin has imposed on their
lives. With this in mind it is important to realize that there
are those persons who, apart from any deliberate choice on their
part, have a predisposition toward homosexuality and have no
desire to enter into a relationship with a person of the opposite
sex.
[37] In order to offer such persons the
compassionate help
they need, the church, having condemned all homosexual acts
engaged in by such persons or by those of a heterosexual
orientation, must stand ready to offer its assistance to those
who seek to overcome the temptations which beset them and who
desire to remain chaste before God despite their homosexual
orientation.

It must be said that a predisposition toward
homosexuality is the result of the disordering,
corrupting effect of the fall into sin, just as also
the predisposition toward any sin is symptomatic of
original sin.
[38] Furthermore, whatever the causes of
such a condition may be-- e.g., environmental or
genetic-homosexual orientation is profoundly
"unnatural" without implying that such a person's sexual
orientation is a matter of conscious, deliberate
choice. However, this fact cannot be used by the
homosexual as an excuse to justify homosexual behavior.
As a sinful human being the homosexual is held
accountable to God for homosexual thoughts, words, and
deeds. Such a person should be counseled to heed the
church's call to repentance, trust in God's promise of
deliverance (Ps. 50:15), and order his/her life in
accord with the Creator's intent.

We should stress that the judgment made here is moral and
theological, not legal. The question whether homosexual acts
between consenting adults should be legally prohibited is one
about which Christian citizens may disagree. Not all matters of
morality are fit subjects for legislation. Although law does play
an educative role and must, therefore, shape moral convictions,
questions of morality are especially fit subjects for legal
codification when they impinge on the common good. Whether
homosexual acts privately engaged in damage the common good in
such a way that public concern and control are needed is
difficult to judge. Even if one felt that such relationships were
not a fit subject for legislation, however, the law would still
have a legitimate interest in protecting children from homosexual
influence in the years when their sexual identity is formed. At
any rate, the judgment of informed Christians may well differ as
to precisely where the legal lines ought more properly be drawn.

We cannot conclude without noting that the discussion above
suggests that Christian counsel for the homosexual is that he
seek to control his sexual orientation at least in the sense that
he abstain from homosexual acts. We should not overlook the
burden of loneliness which this places upon the homosexual. If
the discerning eye of God created woman as the answer to man's
loneliness, the homosexual who abstains from the sexual
relationship to which he is inclined must feel that there is no
"other" to answer to his loneliness. He must be helped to bear
that burden, not merely exhorted to struggle nobly against his
inclinations. It is right to remember, of course, that Christian
counsel to heterosexuals will also often involve asking them to
restrain their impulses and refrain from acts to which they are
inclined. Finally, we should note again that, while marriage can
be said to be the center of the male-female polarity, it is only
a created reality. As we stressed above, marriage has limits, and
entrance into a marital union is not a necessity. The person of
homosexual orientation must be constantly made aware that
fellowship in the church and a share in the hope of the heavenly
kingdom is also offered to him/her through faith in Christ, whose
death has atoned for all sins.

[37] It is not uncommon today to
distinguish between the pervert-for
whom heterosexuality is natural but who nevertheless engages in
homosexual acts-and the invert-who, as far as he knows, has never
experienced heterosexual attraction and for whom a homosexual
orientation seems perfectly natural.

[38] For a discussion of the distinction
between "propensity" and
"behavior" as these terms apply to the question of homosexuality
the reader may wish to consult the Lutheran Church in Australia's
1975 "Statement on Homosexuality," pages 1-2. This report was
distributed to the Synod by the CTCR in April 1975 as "a worthy
contribution to the discussion" of this sensitive issue of human
sexuality.

The words we use reveal more than we suppose about the images
which actually shape our thinking. There is wisdom and insight in
the reflection of Leon Kass, a contemporary Jewish thinker, about
some of the words we use:

Consider the views of life and the world reflected in
the following different expressions to describe the
process of generating new life. The Hebrews, impressed
with the phenomenon of transmission of life from father
to son, used a word we translate "begetting" or
"siring." The Greeks, impressed with the springing
forth of new life in the cyclical processes of
generation and decay, called it genesis, from a root
meaning "to come into being." (It was the Greek
translators who gave this name to the first book of the
Hebrew Bible.) The pre-modern, Christian,
English-speaking world, impressed with the world as
given by a Creator, used the term procreation. We,
impressed with the machine and the gross national
product (our own work of creation), employ a metaphor
of the factory, re-production.
[39]

This is not the place to provide a detailed discussion of the
various methods of reproduction which scientists have developed
or are developing. The basic premise which emerges from our
discussion of sexuality and marriage within a Christian
perspective is the joining of mutual love and procreation within
the covenant of marriage. Even when we contemplated above the
possibility that a husband and wife might-upon serious
reflection-have reason to limit the size of their families, we
never granted that their procreative capacities might then be used
to give birth to children outside of and apart from their
one-flesh union.

The joining of mutual love with procreation is an essential
element in the mystery of our created humanity.

One can in fact speak here of a mystery without exposing
oneself to the charge of tending toward irrational
fuzziness; for what is meant by mystery here can be
very precisely defined. It is the mysterious,
rationally unexplainable bond between the personal act
of human communication-which, according to its purpose,
is live-and the biological creation of a new life,
which constitutes the pledge of this bond.
[40]

To make procreation a technical operation (mere reproduction) and
to remove it from the context of mutual love is to deprive
individuals of their role as persons in God's creative
activities. We spoke above of the fact that the child enters the
world as a manifestation that such mutual love between a man and
a woman is fruitful and creative. That is because the relation of
husband and wife here images the deeper mystery of God's own
creative power. We cannot penetrate the mystery of how God an His
love created the world. Yet we can affirm that all things were
made through Jesus Christ (who was with the Father in the
beginning), that nothing was made without Him, and that God's own
creative act is therefore an act of the One who to Himself is
love (1 John 4:8, 16). "We procreate new beings like ourselves in
the midst of our love for one another, and in this there is a
trace of the original mystery by which God created the world
because of His love."
[41] To sever our acts of procreation from
the personal context of mutual love would be to deface the image
of God's creativity in our own.

It is in this light that Christians will evaluate various proposed
methods of artificial reproduction.
[42] In artificial insemination,
for example, it is possible that the donor of the semen may
himself be the husband of the woman and that for physical or
psychological reasons they are unable to fertilize the woman's
ovum in the ordinary way. Here artificial insemination is offered
as an aid to procreation within marriage. It is intended not to
separate procreation from the context of the loving union of
husband and wife. Instead, it is a way of bringing their love to
the fruition toward which it is naturally ordered. Even here,
however, a word of caution is in order. Artificial insemination
may be a way of avoiding underlying psychological problems within
a marriage rather than treating them. It may also be a step-even
if a justifiable one-toward an attempt to transform the mystery
of human procreation in love into a matter of reproductive
technology.

We can see this when we note that the procedure does not
really accomplish what medicine seeks to do; it does
not cure the underlying defect. The physician is, one
might say, treating not the defect but the desire of
the parents to have a baby. Suppose, however, their
desires go further-suppose, for example, they desire a
male baby. Is that an end which medicine ought to
pursue? We think not. To turn in that direction would
be a definite step away from procreation and toward
reproduction.

Although the Scriptures do not deal directly with the subject of
artificial insemination by a donor other than the husband (AID),
it is our opinion that such a practice must be evaluated
negatively. Whatever the reasons offered in support of AID,
whether eugenic or simply concern that an infertile couple be
enabled to have a child, the process of fertilization is removed
from the personal context of the one-flesh union of husband and
wife in a way that not even their consent can allow.

In a world which has become increasingly technical and
depersonalized, the Christian church is called to bear witness to
the human significance of the bond between male and female, to
the purposes which God as Creator and Preserver has implanted in
marriage, and to the ways in which such an understanding should
shape our lives. To hold up before people once again the human,
personal significance of our fundamental fleshly relationship, to
explore the mysterious image of God's love in the one flesh union
of husband and wife, and to recognize in wonder and humility the
limitations which our creaturely condition places upon us-all
this is part of fidelity to that God who has redeemed us, not
that we may flee from His creation but that we may cherish it and
find in it intimations of His love.

[42] A section on in vitro fertilization
has not been included in
this report, since the Social Concerns Committee of the CTCR will
give attention to this matter in its study of biomedical ethics
(cf. 1975 Res. 3-26, "To Provide Assistance Regarding
Bioethics").

This text was converted to ASCII text for Project Wittenberg
by Rev. Robert Grothe and Rev. Todd Dittloff and is in the public
domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please
direct any comments or suggestions to: